That's a statement I read in another thread some have dubbed a pointless conversation.

If we can't understand the basic difference between rights and privileges, they're right, the rest becomes extremely pointless. The accepted dependency we continuously encounter today s saddening. Not only for hunters, but for free people.

I'll re post a piece I'm sure I've posted here before.

"The second amendment is about the "SECURITY" of a "FREE" state.This secure free state they were addressing was spoken of by one Thomas Jefferson in his penning of the words "...the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.They were addressing the right of the people to repel invasions.They were talking about the right of the people to repel domestic tyranny from the politician in the capitol to the thug at the ATM.They were addressing the right to LIVE.

How have the last 3 or 4 generations allowed the taking of game to generate into the permit system of game management when in reality we're talking about the right to sustain life, a natural extension in the embodiment of a concept of a FREE STATE, secured via the means of an inalienable right to bear arms for remaining FREE? How many of you would pay for a license to buy food at WalMart? Why is the game in the field any different? It's clear that even the hunting community who is so passionate about hunting has somehow grown up thinking that the right to sustain life, isn't an inalienable right. If you can't find a right to live in the words of the second amendment, then the right to live doesn't exists for anybody at any age, never mind the right to sustain life through consuming FOOD?

The willingness to accept such limitations of the second amendment is why we are comfortable with the infringement of it over the last 100 years. Once you accept a fee for participation, it's not a right. It's a privilege. Thus, your inalienable right is subjugated to the approval of your fellow man and any limitations they may come up with. You are "alienated" from the right by a self imposed, willful infringement upon a God given "inalienable" right to life, defense of life and sustainment of life through the gathering of game for your table.

But let me step aside and quote from somebody whose spent much more time researching the 2nd than I have. From the 2000 book: "The Second Amendment, Preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Self-Protection" by David Barton: Page 14:

Although much less emphasized during the framing of the Second Amendment, gun activities related to hunting were also covered under the protection of that Amendment since it was also considered to be a natural, God-given right for each individual to be able to provide food for his table through what Pennsylvania in 1787 described as "killing game."

Ref:

A report from the 1787 Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution included protection "for killing game" as part of their suggestion for the original wording of the Second Amendment. (See The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to the Constituents (Boston: Powers, 1787),p.6, Art. 7; see also The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, December 18, 1787) and this language is subsequently found in current State constitutions, including Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, art 1, New Mexico, art II, North Dakota, art 1, West Virginia, art III, Wisconsin, art 1, etc...

Can there be a right to armed defense of persons and country if there's no right to sustain life through gathering the sustenance necessary to do so?

Imagine purchasing a permit to buy groceries at the local Krogers or WalMart but we don't have any issues with seeking a permit to kill and process meat from the wild?"

"Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. " - Frederic Bastiat, 1850

Excellent post Big Horse. I noticed that assumption but was pre-occupied and didn't flesh it out. I wouldn't have done it as good as you did anyway so it worked out for the better.

Indeed our constitution and bill of rights framers' would have expected us not to let govt. take those rights from us.

And I'm certain we'll have plenty of folks in here to tell us that it is a privilege because of misuse of previous generations. You know, the market hunters... and how without laws to govern our behavior we would in fact be infringing on other's rights by hunting to extinction.

To which I would say there are umpteen different constitutionally sound workarounds that would protect that right for all. But lazy gets us into all kinds of trouble, and it's much easier to let someone else tell us how to behave.

I know that folks will think I'm splitting hairs. However, the way I see it, hunting is a basic natural right. However, there are a bunch of limits on how we hunt, so that the end result is that sport hunting has become a privledge of sorts.

In a similar vein free movement is a basic natural right. If I want to go from Cincinnati to Sheboygan, there is no law that says I cannot. However, if I try to drive on a highway without a license? That's a problem. If I walk onto an expressway? That's a problem.

The same is true with hunting. Mind you, the idea of sustinance is pretty far removed from modern game law. Most of us don't go and hunt deer just for food anymore. The game laws only deal with certain species. However, most of them are the tastiest and most desireable. There are not that many game animals to go around. There are too many of us to make the existing game population feed us anymore. Therefore, we limit access to game. Personally, I don't see a huge problem.

Where I do see a problem is folks who claim hunting as a natural right and then go and try to take their fill regardless of the law. That just simply cannot be condoned. The laws are there to protect both the game and our continued access to the game.

While I think that hunting is closely related to certain inalienable rights, namely the right to life, self-determination and self-defense, I do not consider it to be a right in and of itself. A well functioning, modern society could protect all of the above rights and still prohibit hunting. Hunting is a privilege.

I agree with J'per also. The WILD game of a state is owned collectively by the people of that state, and the people of the state have empowered the DNR or whatever that particular state's willdlife management agency is called to control and manage that state's wildlife in the name of the people of the state. The wildlife management agency decides on a yearly basis what game may be hunted when, and what the bag limits are, HOPEFULLY based on science and a sustained yield philosophy. But that's in a perfect world.

The state of New Jersey had a closed season on black bears for many years until they became over populated and a real nusiance. The New Jersey Fish and Game proposed and endorsed bear seasons for many years but could not get them opened because of political pressure from the anti-hunting forces who had the ear of then Governor Corzine. If elected officials can decide on a whim if you can do it or not then it's not a "right" at all, but a privilege at best.

There is no "right" to hunt. At best all the "right to hunt" feel good legislation that some states have enacted can do is recognize that sport hunting is a traditional and legitimate tool for wildlife management, but the DNR still has the ultimate say at whether there's even a hunting season for a particular year, and for whatever reason they choose.

Now if you buy your own game animals and want to hunt them that's another matter, as they are considered the same as livestock. Like a hereford steer, you own them and they are yours to do with as you see fit. You certainly do have the "right" to hunt them in whatever manner you wish.

A natural right is not necessarily what folks think of as a constitutional right. The constitution gave us a few specifically spelled-out limitations of government, Rights to assemble, exercise free speech, etc. were guaranteed, not given. There were a bunch of others, mostly natural rights, given by the Almighty himself, that were assumed to be sacrosanct. The way you determine a natural right is this: is it something inherent to the makings or workings of man as God made him? You have a natural right to breathe air, a natural right to travel freely, a natural right to sustinance-- these things are things that allow man to live and to live free.

Why do I say hunting is a right? Look, everyone needs food. You must be given a chance to gain sustenance for yourself and your family. If a man has no money, how is he to eat? We're currently got our panties all wadded up over Obamacare, right? What is the issue? The individual mandate to engage in commerce (buy insurance) . Our federal government is demanding we engage in commerce whether we want to or not. How is that different from what we're discussing here. Without a natural right to hunt, we would be forcing people to engage in commerce to buy meat. You should be able to get it on your own.

I'm not saying we should be allowed to go out and bag a deer at will. However, hunting in and of itself cannot be denied. There are ways to hunt and trap that do not impinge on current hunting laws. You can feed yourself and feed yourself well if you need to. We as sport hunters generally do not think of them, because they're . . . well, they're not sport.

shaman: Hunting in and of itself is a "natural right", because as you say, you have to eat. But what we are talking about here is SPORT hunting, and for animals that you DON'T own outright. It'd be like saying that I need heat for my home, so I should be able to go anywhere I wish and cut down a tree.

Again, the catch here is that wild game animals are owned collectively by the people of a state.